Appeal No. 1996-3816 Page 4
Application No. 08/293,331
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellant's
arguments, we are not persuaded of reversible error on the
part of the examiner. Accordingly, we will sustain this
rejection. We add the following comments for emphasis.
We initially note that appellant states at page 2 of
the brief that the claims stand or fall together.
Accordingly, we shall focus our consideration of the issues
raised in this appeal primarily as they relate to
representative claim 54.
In obviousness-type double patenting rejections, any
analysis employed parallels the guidelines for analysis of a
§ 103 obviousness determination. See In re Longi, 759 F.2d
887, 892-93, 225 USPQ 645, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly,
the question this appeal presents requires us to decide
whether the claims on appeal herein encompass a product which
would not have been patentably distinct from the product
necessarily produced by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007